Does psychiatry create a cult like mentality?

I have no doubt an entire world of medicine exists outside of what we know as medicine. Everyone has something that works for them, there is no one size fits all in my view.

Riccola wrote:I have no doubt an entire world of medicine exists outside of what we know as medicine. Everyone has something that works for them, there is no one size fits all in my view.

Yeah. My answer in part is the Catholic Eucharist. But there are so many issues with the Catholic Church that I have to dance among parishes. I know life would start to feel heavy and perhaps even meaningless without my spiritual life. But I wasn't always that way. So when I see peeps taking pills I wish I could help them see that there is another level, another floor at the top of the building, as it were. But most think I'm just latching onto something that gives me "structure" or what not. True spirituality is so much more than "structure." And I don't buy into the Catholic structures.

I just share my little story to try to suggest alternatives to the med paradigm. My avatar is meant to be satirical. We are NOT robots and a hell of a lot more than an assemblage of neurons, imo.

Considering how psychiatry treats people like they are utterly soulless I think it needs to a spiritual side; at least recognizing that patients are actually human.

Interesting subject.

There is really no excuse for the "cult" like mentality in the psychiatry.
The psychiatrist should know better. It is their job to handle mental patients, and they are bouth educated and well paid to do soo, in a decent manner.

However time and again we hear about abuse of power towards the patients, and simple comunication betwen the doctor and patient failing, because og the psychiatrist problems whit his enourmous ego and the lack of empathy for the patient.

In fact a psychiatrist should never, act insulted or indifferent towards his patients, since he is the one who has all the cards, and solutions for the patient.
If a psychatrist act insulted and careless, it is a sure sign that the he is not capaple of his job. And yes i think the psychiatry is a cult, that think more about making money on medicine druks, than understanding the trauma of the patients, and finding solutions.

I believe that psychiatrists are afraid of speaking openly about the condition of the industry, and admitting to the indifferent it holds to curing the patients, and savning our whole sociaity that are run by psychopats, who put money over human life.

It is such a corupt system, paid for by the medical industry, too keep us paitients in check, and to numb the world.
The paychiatrist have a high priest, and if they cross him, they will loose their membership in the cult, and thereby their money and power.

-- Sun Dec 18, 2016 11:51 am --

Riccola wrote:Considering how psychiatry treats people like they are utterly soulless I think it needs to a spiritual side; at least recognizing that patients are actually human.

Well said. You nailed it in so few words.
I totaly agree.

Runestone wrote:Interesting subject.

There is really no excuse for the "cult" like mentality in the psychiatry.
The psychiatrist should know better. It is their job to handle mental patients, and they are bouth educated and well paid to do soo, in a decent manner.

However time and again we hear about abuse of power towards the patients, and simple comunication betwen the doctor and patient failing, because og the psychiatrist problems whit his enourmous ego and the lack of empathy for the patient.

In fact a psychiatrist should never, act insulted or indifferent towards his patients, since he is the one who has all the cards, and solutions for the patient.
If a psychatrist act insulted and careless, it is a sure sign that the he is not capaple of his job. And yes i think the psychiatry is a cult, that think more about making money on medicine druks, than understanding the trauma of the patients, and finding solutions.

I believe that psychiatrists are afraid of speaking openly about the condition of the industry, and admitting to the indifferent it holds to curing the patients, and savning our whole sociaity that are run by psychopats, who put money over human life.

It is such a corupt system, paid for by the medical industry, too keep us paitients in check, and to numb the world.
The paychiatrist have a high priest, and if they cross him, they will loose their membership in the cult, and thereby their money and power.

-- Sun Dec 18, 2016 11:51 am --

Riccola wrote:Considering how psychiatry treats people like they are utterly soulless I think it needs to a spiritual side; at least recognizing that patients are actually human.

Well said. You nailed it in so few words.
I totaly agree.

Weclome and thanks.

I agree 100%, very well written on your part.

since he is the one who has all the cards, and solutions for the patient.

I've seen many cases where they do not have solutions for their patients. Yet somehow they are totally unaware and even if they are refuse to admit it. "I just don't know" or "I don't have all the answers" are honest words that can greatly help a patient instead of an attitude where they are forced to doubt their own sanity or existence.

Riccola wrote:Considering how psychiatry treats people like they are utterly soulless I think it needs to a spiritual side; at least recognizing that patients are actually human.

I think there are some good doctors out there. I recently came across a video that I thought was promising because the doctor had some degree of historical perspective and humility...

http://www.psychiatrictimes.com/cultura ... en-and-now

9 minute video.

-- Sun Dec 18, 2016 10:57 pm --

Runestone wrote:Interesting subject.

There is really no excuse for the "cult" like mentality in the psychiatry.
The psychiatrist should know better. It is their job to handle mental patients, and they are bouth educated and well paid to do soo, in a decent manner.

However time and again we hear about abuse of power towards the patients, and simple comunication betwen the doctor and patient failing, because og the psychiatrist problems whit his enourmous ego and the lack of empathy for the patient.

In fact a psychiatrist should never, act insulted or indifferent towards his patients, since he is the one who has all the cards, and solutions for the patient.
If a psychatrist act insulted and careless, it is a sure sign that the he is not capaple of his job. And yes i think the psychiatry is a cult, that think more about making money on medicine druks, than understanding the trauma of the patients, and finding solutions.

I believe that psychiatrists are afraid of speaking openly about the condition of the industry, and admitting to the indifferent it holds to curing the patients, and savning our whole sociaity that are run by psychopats, who put money over human life.

It is such a corupt system, paid for by the medical industry, too keep us paitients in check, and to numb the world.
The paychiatrist have a high priest, and if they cross him, they will loose their membership in the cult, and thereby their money and power.

-- Sun Dec 18, 2016 11:51 am --

Riccola wrote:Considering how psychiatry treats people like they are utterly soulless I think it needs to a spiritual side; at least recognizing that patients are actually human.

Well said. You nailed it in so few words.
I totaly agree.

Yeah, corruption is a huge problem and imo many so called "mentally ill" are mostly sensitive people picking up on the undercurrents that are, for the most part, unexpressed in any culture. Consciously they don't know what's going on but unconsciously their soul reads it. Hence a terrible fragmentation of lived experience. Just a theory... not the gospel truth or anything..

I think there are some good doctors out there. I recently came across a video that I thought was promising because the doctor had some degree of historical perspective and humility...

http://www.psychiatrictimes.com/cultura ... en-and-now

9 minute video.

Thanks, but the link does not work for me

Yeah, corruption is a huge problem and imo many so called "mentally ill" are mostly sensitive people picking up on the undercurrents that are, for the most part, unexpressed in any culture. Consciously they don't know what's going on but unconsciously their soul reads it. Hence a terrible fragmentation of lived experience. Just a theory... not the gospel truth or anything..

I think all patients are introspective to some degree or another but that never gets taken seriously. As does legit concerns about the world; which are sadly placed back in the patient just because the rest of the world doesn't appear as concerned as they are.

Hi, Riccola. Ignoring your personal insight doesn't automatically mean they're not taking you seriously. From what I'm learning so far as a psych student, there's a balancing act to psychiatry and one I'll attempt to articulate with this post with two examples of what we're taught in psych classes: the ACA code of ethics and the humanitarian approach. These examples will hopefully show how psychology can be both impersonal and kind at the same time.

First, lets look at the impersonal side. Psychiatrists follow the ACA code of ethics. Part of the ACA are rules forbidding therapy and treatment of friends, family, and other personal acquaintances. One of my psych instructors who also worked at a stress clinic told our class she was obligated to inform her superiors at the clinic if someone she was assisting even reminded her of someone she's had a personal relationship with. When this happened, she would assist a different client and one of her colleagues would work with the person she felt she may be too biased to assist. Minimizing personal involvement is a big point of emphasis for psychiatrists - especially because numerous boundaries are required by the ACA. Some psychiatrists may not take your personal introspection as seriously as you like because of the emphasis on minimizing personal involvement. They're taught too much personal involvement restricts one's ability to help. Their view would be you're too personally involved with yourself to be objective. I don't know why. All I know is minimizing some personal involvement is currently a part of the education for becoming a psychiatrist. Minimizing your own personal insight on yourself could be a part of attempting to be objective.

However, this doesn't mean psychiatry is completely against us attempting to solve the riddles of our own personal problems. Lets look at a huge example of psychology promoting exactly what you're asking for - a bigger emphasis on your own insight. Psychologists like Carl Rogers started what gets called the "Humanitarian approach" to psychotherapy. His beliefs were people know themselves better than anyone else and it's not the psychologist's place to tell us who we are and what we're experiencing. Rather, he thought a psychiatrist's job was to simply guide us in our attempts to understand and address our own problems. Although some aspects of this approach have had mixed results, it's taught to psych students for a much needed emphasis on kindness.

I bring up both of these examples because in some ways they're contradictory and yet both are taught in psychology classes. Within these classes, which are a part of what people are taught when attempting to become psychiatrists, we're shown different approaches because ultimately it's unclear how personally removed or not someone ought to be to best address the issues we're experiencing. Simply put, we're taught to be kind but not personally involved. We're taught there are advantages to being personally removed. If a psychiatrist doesn't take our insight about ourselves seriously, it gives them a chance to focus on something we might never think of on our own. People who visit this sub-forum also know there are disadvantages as well. It sucks to basically be removed from a process intended to help us where were following expected to follow the advice of strangers. People know things we don't about us but we also know things about ourselves they don't.

Overall, psychologists have good reasons for both dismissing some of our our thoughts about ourselves and focusing on them. How do you choose a single way to help someone when there are so many ways and so much information supporting each way? They're walking a tight-rope with how to help us, such as by trying to be objective enough to determine what we're experiencing and to not damage us with how impersonal that process can be at times. In your experience, Riccola, I'd bet your psychiatrist was coming up short with being kind and collaborative because he or she fell off that tight-rope by being objective to the point where it was damaging to your experience as a patient/client. Maybe he or she wasn't taking you seriously. Maybe he or she was also taking you so seriously that your personal insight was ignored in an attempt to be objective - just like their code of ethics mandates.

sunshineNrainbows wrote:Hi, Riccola. Ignoring your personal insight doesn't automatically mean they're not taking you seriously. From what I'm learning so far as a psych student, there's a balancing act to psychiatry and one I'll attempt to articulate with this post with two examples of what we're taught in psych classes: the ACA code of ethics and the humanitarian approach. These examples will hopefully show how psychology can be both impersonal and kind at the same time.

First, lets look at the impersonal side. Psychiatrists follow the ACA code of ethics. Part of the ACA are rules forbidding therapy and treatment of friends, family, and other personal acquaintances. One of my psych instructors who also worked at a stress clinic told our class she was obligated to inform her superiors at the clinic if someone she was assisting even reminded her of someone she's had a personal relationship with. When this happened, she would assist a different client and one of her colleagues would work with the person she felt she may be too biased to assist. Minimizing personal involvement is a big point of emphasis for psychiatrists - especially because numerous boundaries are required by the ACA. Some psychiatrists may not take your personal introspection as seriously as you like because of the emphasis on minimizing personal involvement. They're taught too much personal involvement restricts one's ability to help. Their view would be you're too personally involved with yourself to be objective. I don't know why. All I know is minimizing some personal involvement is currently a part of the education for becoming a psychiatrist. Minimizing your own personal insight on yourself could be a part of attempting to be objective.

However, this doesn't mean psychiatry is completely against us attempting to solve the riddles of our own personal problems. Lets look at a huge example of psychology promoting exactly what you're asking for - a bigger emphasis on your own insight. Psychologists like Carl Rogers started what gets called the "Humanitarian approach" to psychotherapy. His beliefs were people know themselves better than anyone else and it's not the psychologist's place to tell us who we are and what we're experiencing. Rather, he thought a psychiatrist's job was to simply guide us in our attempts to understand and address our own problems. Although some aspects of this approach have had mixed results, it's taught to psych students for a much needed emphasis on kindness.

I bring up both of these examples because in some ways they're contradictory and yet both are taught in psychology classes. Within these classes, which are a part of what people are taught when attempting to become psychiatrists, we're shown different approaches because ultimately it's unclear how personally removed or not someone ought to be to best address the issues we're experiencing. Simply put, we're taught to be kind but not personally involved. We're taught there are advantages to being personally removed. If a psychiatrist doesn't take our insight about ourselves seriously, it gives them a chance to focus on something we might never think of on our own. People who visit this sub-forum also know there are disadvantages as well. It sucks to basically be removed from a process intended to help us where were following expected to follow the advice of strangers. People know things we don't about us but we also know things about ourselves they don't.

Overall, psychologists have good reasons for both dismissing some of our our thoughts about ourselves and focusing on them. How do you choose a single way to help someone when there are so many ways and so much information supporting each way? They're walking a tight-rope with how to help us, such as by trying to be objective enough to determine what we're experiencing and to not damage us with how impersonal that process can be at times. In your experience, Riccola, I'd bet your psychiatrist was coming up short with being kind and collaborative because he or she fell off that tight-rope by being objective to the point where it was damaging to your experience as a patient/client. Maybe he or she wasn't taking you seriously. Maybe he or she was also taking you so seriously that your personal insight was ignored in an attempt to be objective - just like their code of ethics mandates.

Thanks, great insight and perspective


I agree and I do not find it contradictory. Their needs to be some boundaries in place between doctors and patients for a variety of reasons. And it is IMO for the best interest of the patient that the doctor remain neutral. To be be kind, understanding, but not polarized. For example, a doctor becoming emotionally swayed by a patient can become biased in thinking and damage treatment in the process.

However, when you are misdiagnosed or the psychiatrist's opinion influences involuntary aspects of your life, lack of listening or not being taken seriously can be profoundly damaging. Psychiatrists do not have all the answers and when they assume that they do it does far more harm than good.

How difficult is it to get multiple professional opinions on a diagnosis? Would you need to basically meet with several different therapists and attend multiple sessions with each of them where you discuss similar matters? Or is there a faster way to protect ourselves from a misdiagnosis?